Evidence Law: The Rule of Relevance and Admissibility of Character Evidence

the first hurdle in presenting any piece of evidence to a court is showing that the evidence is relevant relevance is a threshold requirement that must be met before the court can consider the value that the evidence may have evidence is relevant when it has any tendency to make effect more or less probable than it would be without the evidence and that fact is of consequence in making the determination for example in a breach of contract case the most relevant and direct piece of evidence is usually the contract itself the contract shows the court the obligations that each party had one party may also present testimony that the other party failed to make a payment that was required in the contract all of this evidence is relevant to showing that one party failed to comply with the contract terms proving that one party failed to comply with the contract is a fact of consequence in determining a breach of contract case once evidence is shown to be relevant that evidence is admissible in court unless excluded by some other rule of law or evidence irrelevant evidence is not admissible a court may exclude relevant evidence when the probative value of the evidence is substantially outweighed by the danger of one or more of the following unfair prejudice confusing the issues misleading the jury undue delay wasting time or needlessly presenting cumulative evidence in determining whether relevant evidence should still be excluded the court is concerned with focusing on legal issues in the case and avoiding distractions that certain pieces of evidence could present unfair prejudice one of the dangers out weighing the potential probative value of evidence is a good example of this it is a common reason why relevant evidence is excluded consider a robbery case where the prosecutor seeks to introduce testimony that a witness saw the defendant using drugs near the store that was robbed about 10 minutes prior to the robbery the evidence is relevant because it shows that the defendant was near the store close in time to when the robbery occurred however this testimonies probative value may be outweighed by the danger of unfair this testimony presents the risk of prejudice because it indicates that the defendant may have committed the crime of drug use and thus is a person who regularly commits crimes a court may decide to exclude the observation of the defendant using drugs to prevent the threat of unfair prejudice to the defendant the last robbery example highlights a special type of evidence known as character evidence character evidence is used to describe the character trait of a person such as a tendency to commit crimes character evidence could also include a witness testifying that a party in the case has a reputation in the community of being a violent person or a witness opinion that the defendant is very honest and truthful as a general rule character evidence may not be used to prove that a person acted in accordance with that character trait on a particular occasion thus if a plaintiff wanted to present testimony indicating that the defendant is known as a violent person this evidence could not be used in an assault case to prove that the defendant actually acted violently on the occasion of the alleged assault this type of evidence presents a threat of unfair prejudice because it invites the court or jury to judge the defendant based on this reputation rather than on the facts established by the evidence during trial many exceptions apply to this general rule about character evidence in criminal cases the defendant may present character evidence about him or herself for example the defendant in an assault case may present a witness who states that the defendant is a non violent person the defendant may do this even though the prosecutor would not be allowed to initially present testimony that the defendant would be known to be a violent person however if the defendant presents evidence showing that he is a non violent person then he opens the door to the prosecutor presenting rebuttal or contrary evidence the prosecutor would then be permitted to show that the defendant is known as a violent person in the community in an attempt to disprove the defendants evidence similarly if the defendant seeks to admit evidence about the character of a victim the door is open to the prosecutor to present rebuttal evidence about the victim thus if the defendant presents testimony that the victim of an assault is known as a violent person the prosecutor is then free to introduce testimony that the victim is actually known as a peaceful person anytime a person testifies as a witness character evidence relating to the propensity of that person to tell the truth becomes relevant any party can attack the credibility or truthfulness of a witness if a witness's character for truthfulness is attacked during a hearing or trial then evidence regarding the witness's character for truthfulness is also admissible thus if a witness is accused of not telling the truth on the witness stand then evidence may be entered to show that the witness does have a character trait of truthfulness the two main ways that this can be shown is through testimony regarding that witness's reputation in the community and through opinion testimony for example if witness wendy is accused of not telling the truth about the number of drinks she observed the defendant consuming edible then her friend James may testify that witness Wendy is known in their community for being an honest and truthful person the credibility of a witness may also be attacked with evidence of certain criminal convictions particularly convictions involving a dishonest act or false statement frequently parties may wish to introduce evidence regarding other crimes wrongs or acts committed by parties this cannot be used as character evidence when offered to show that the person acted in accordance with the character trait on a particular occasion a plaintiff bringing a negligence suit for example may wish to show that the defendant was found to have acted negligently three years ago in a separate legal action the plaintiff may argue that this evidence is relevant because that prior case was a negligence case that's similar to the current case the plaintiff is seeking to show that the respondent has a character trait of negligence and thus acted negligently on the occasion at issue this type of evidence is not permitted because it violates this basic rule against character evidence however the character evidence rules do not apply where the evidence is introduced to prove something other than that the defendant acted in accordance with the character trait in these situations evidence of other crimes wrongs reacts may be introduced to show motive opportunity intent preparation plan knowledge identity absence of mistake or lack of accident for example if Jim has a history of robbing liquor stores while wearing Richard Nixon masks and Jim is now accused of robbing a store while wearing a Richard Nixon mask where an issue in controversy is the identity of the person behind the mask the prosecution may offer evidence of Jim's history of robbing liquor stores while wearing Nixon masks the evidence is not being used to show Jim's character but to show the identity of the robber simps Jim's modus operandi involves using Nixon masks to rob liquor stores that fact makes it more likely that he was behind the mask on this particular occasion we're allowed character evidence may also be proven through reputation or opinion testimony specific instances of conduct however may be used to prove character only when the character trait being proved is an element of a charge claim or a defense at issue in the case all of these types of character evidence are allowed if the conduct rises to the level of habit routine or practice evidence that a person has a habit routine or practice may be used to show that the person acted in accordance with that habit on a particular occasion if a person goes for a run along the same route every morning at 5:00 a.m. for example he's established a habit thus a court may admit evidence about the defendants habit of running at 5 a.m. to show that the defendant was likely near the scene of the crime if the crime occurred along the defendants usual route around the time that the defendant takes his run this information is both relevant and admissible as habit evidence there are a few other important restrictions placed on relevant evidence the first relates to remedial measures taken by a party that had they been in place earlier could have prevented the injury or harm a party may not present evidence that the opposing party took some remedial action after an injury occurred to prove negligence culpable conduct a design or product defect or that a warning or instruction was sorry a common example is a building posting a slippery when wet sign after someone slips and falls on the building's floor it seems relevant that the building or its management recognized the danger that the floor posed when wet and thus placed the sign however the fact that the manager of the building posted this sign after the injury is not admissible to prove that the manager of the building acted negligently by not posting the sign earlier the reason is that we don't want to discourage people from taking remedial measures that prevent injury if those measures could be used in court to prove negligence before the steps were taken then people would hesitate to take them as a result evidence of remedial measures are only admissible when offered for some other purpose such as proving that the manager of the building exercised control over the area when the person slipped finally restrictions are also placed on evidence regarding the sexual history of a victim these restrictions are referred to as rape shield laws in civil and criminal cases involving allegations of sexual misconduct the law prevents the party from presenting evidence regarding the general sexual predisposition or past sexual behavior of the victim there are some exceptions as the evidence may be admitted when used for a different purpose in criminal cases or when its probative value substantially outweighs the danger of unfair prejudice to a party for example if this evidence is necessary to prove consent as in where the cases involving a couple and the couple had a history of consensual rough sex a court may determine that its probative value outweighs the danger of unfair prejudice given the delicate nature of this evidence courts must very carefully consider the impact of the evidence and what it could have on the case the purpose of having restrictions placed on evidence that can be introduced is to prevent the court and jury from making decisions based on factors other than what the law dictates character evidence poses a particularly high risk of prejudice because it focuses on the character traits of a person rather than on the series of facts and events that the parties are required to prove however character evidence does have its place particularly when used to rebut opposing evidence ultimately the decision to admit or exclude evidence rests with the court often using the threat of unfair prejudice as a guide

Channel: LawShelf

Views: 21,966

Rating: 4.9428573 out of 5

Keywords: Evidence Law, The Rule of Relevance, Admissibility of Character Evidence, evidence law part one, evidence law lectures, evidence law class, evidence law bar review, evidence law book, evidence law course, evidence case law, evidence in criminal law, evidence law for dummies, law of evidence full lecture, facts in evidence law, character evidence explained, character evidence law, character evidence bar exam, character evidence youtube, character evidence in civil cases

Id: byczmeYHCyE

Length: 11min 34sec (694 seconds)

Published: Wed Apr 22 2020